Incompatible browser

Internet Explorer versions 7 and older have known compatibility and security issues with modern
web standards which affect next generation Web 2.0 websites. In our attempt to deliver a superior
experience, we no longer support Internet Explorer versions 7 and older.

Please upgrade to the latest
version of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari or Chrome.

Is a campus-like approach for MRc2 acceptable for two LEED-NC v2009 registered projects each pursuing one-off certification? Space is limited on the urban site for recycling dumpsters, therefore the...

Inquiry

Is a campus-like approach for MRc2 acceptable for two LEED-NC v2009 registered projects each pursuing one-off certification? Space is limited on the urban site for recycling dumpsters, therefore the best approach for CWM may mean that waste and recycling for all LEED registered projects will need to be aggregated and tracked together. AGMBC Master Site / Campus is not utilized, yet we propose using the AGMBC precedent for MRc2 documentation. We propose to track together all demolition, construction waste/diverted, & land clearing material for the project and then apply a weighted average based on GSF to each LEED project.

Ruling

The applicant has requested to use a weighted average approach for Materials and Resources Credit 2 Construction Waste Management for several buildings that are pursuing one-off LEED Certification under LEED BD&C. Yes, the project may utilize a weighted approach based on gross floor area to determine the total construction waste for each building pursuing certification. For each LEED BD&C Building, the project team will be required to identify the materials that are diverted from disposal and provide calculations documenting the diversion rate. Each building must meet the required threshold for waste diversion in order to earn the credit. In addition, the Construction Waste Management (CWM) Plan must outline goals for diversion for each building, not just as an aggregate across all projects. Note that if the waste is comingled and sorted offsite, the project may follow the requirements outlined in LEED Interpretation 3000 for determining and documenting the diversion rate. This ruling addresses only projects pursing LEED Certification under the BD&C Rating Systems and does not set any precedent or guidelines for projects pursuing certification under different LEED Rating Systems. Applicable internationally.

The proposed project site is located on a military base that has potentially unexploded ordnance on-site.

Protection from potential detonation during construction is required by the federal gov...

Inquiry

The proposed project site is located on a military base that has potentially unexploded ordnance on-site.

Protection from potential detonation during construction is required by the federal government to shield pedestrians and existing housing across the street from the project site. As a part of the project, a detonation barrier is to be constructed prior to start of excavation. This barrier can be built using various material but must have substantial foundations and structural strength to withstand large explosion forces. After construction is completed, the detonation barriers would be deconstructed to allow access to the site.

The project team is proposing to incorporate salvaged local material into the design of these barrier walls. May the salvaged material qualify for MR credit 2 Construction Waste Managementif recycled after deconstruction?

Ruling

The project team has inquired whether materials used for a temporary (during construction) detonation barrier can be included within the construction waste management materials diverted since it is mandated to be built. If the temporary detonation barrier is recycled or salvaged after deconstruction, it meets the intent of MR Credit 2 (diversion from landfill and incineration) and may contribute towards construction waste management.

A CS project is inheriting an existing building that still has furniture from the previous tenant. The project team is seeking clarification on how to account for this furniture in MRc2 and how to doc...

Inquiry

A CS project is inheriting an existing building that still has furniture from the previous tenant. The project team is seeking clarification on how to account for this furniture in MRc2 and how to document the selling of this furniture to a re-seller.

Ruling

Furniture may be included within its own category, without the need to breakdown the material composition unless components of the furniture are to be salvaged independently. In addition, diversion by re-sale is acceptable. The project team is required to document the receiving company (such as through a contract or sales receipt) and confirm that furniture is intended to be re-sold by that company. Applicable internationally.

Can waste diversion rates be documented as an average recycling rate for an integrated waste management operation serving a market area as opposed to the average for a single facility?Does the USG...

Inquiry

Can waste diversion rates be documented as an average recycling rate for an integrated waste management operation serving a market area as opposed to the average for a single facility?Does the USGBC offer a prescriptive method for facilities to back-up commingle recycling percentage claims? Is visual inspection of project loads an acceptable method for documenting recycling rates? When calculating recycling percentages the USGBC does not seem to have a limit on how much ADC can be claimed as a "recyclable" commodity.

Ruling

A system recycling rate is acceptable as long, as the recycling rate utilized is regulated by a local or state government authority as a closed system, in compliance with the LEED-NC 2.1 CIR dated 12/2/2005 (#3000).For project using a project specific diversion rate, visual inspection is not an acceptable method of inspection for purposes of documenting percentage of commingled waste diverted from landfill. Currently ADC is an acceptable method for compliance with this credit. ADC meets the intent of MRc2. At this time there is no limit as to how much ADC can be used to fulfill credit compliance. Applicable internationally.

In the waste diversion process many questions have come up regarding utilizing Waste-to-Energy as a landfill diverstion strategy. Can Waste-to-Energy be utilized as a landfill diversion strategy if; t...

Inquiry

In the waste diversion process many questions have come up regarding utilizing Waste-to-Energy as a landfill diverstion strategy. Can Waste-to-Energy be utilized as a landfill diversion strategy if; this effort ran parallel to sorting recyclable and reusable materials, and the power plant proposed has approved EPA pollution control devices. Alternatively, can paying additional cost to transport non recyclable trash to a Waste-to Energy power plant to be incinerated and converted into electrical energy count as diverted waste?

Ruling

Only wood derived fuel can contribute to MRc2 in this manner. Incineration cannot be used as an alternative method for diverting waste from the landfill for purposes of credit achievement. Applicable internationally.

During construction while excavating for placement of compacted sub-grade and asphalt, limestone was found on our project site. Due to its location and interference with the parking surface elevation,...

Inquiry

During construction while excavating for placement of compacted sub-grade and asphalt, limestone was found on our project site. Due to its location and interference with the parking surface elevation, the rock was removed and donated to the local county which was used for permanent erosion control on a different project site. Although the reference guide disregards excavated soil and land clearing debris from this credit, we propose that the limestone as a product differs from the "land clearing debris" because it is a material which can be recycled into another product that otherwise would have had to been extracted and manufactured. We believe that this attribute of the limestone allows it to count as a "reusable material". We also believe that the donation and redirection of the limestone as a reusable material for a different site, not only meets the intent of this credit by diverting waste, but is also an acceptable manner (as defined by the reference guide) by which to qualify for the credit as it is "redirecting reusable materials to appropriate sites". In keeping with the intent of this credit, can we include this rock in our MRc2 Construction Waste Management Calculations?

Ruling

**Update October 1, 2013: This ruling is no longer valid. Please see LI 10062 for more information and an update ruling.

The project is proposing to include excavated limestone as diverted construction waste because it was given to another project to be used as permanent erosion control on another project. The LEED Reference Guide explicitly defines rock as land clearing debris and thus it can not be included in credit calculations. Previous CIR rulings dated 9/9/2008 and 3/4/2004 state the same conclusion.

Our construction waste management plan includes collection of all cardboard, small wood scraps, and gypsum in a mixed container to be shipped to Martins Farm in Greenfield, MA, 36 miles from the const...

Inquiry

Our construction waste management plan includes collection of all cardboard, small wood scraps, and gypsum in a mixed container to be shipped to Martins Farm in Greenfield, MA, 36 miles from the construction site in Putney, VT. At Martins Farm, these waste products will be composted along with other waste materials. The resulting organic approved compost is sold, in bulk and in bags, to area organic farmers for use as a soil additive. Does this process satisfy the requirements of MRc2?

Ruling

The project is seeking clarification that the processing of the cardboard, small wood scraps, and gypsum into soil amendment for use in agriculture is an acceptable form of material diversion from landfills and incinerators. Yes, the composting of construction material for reuse meets the credit requirements and can be included in the calculations for MRc2. Applicable Internationally.

Our project is being built on what was once a City-owned asphalt parking lot. All the asphalt was removed, taken to a recycling plant, and crushed. We are not able to re-use the asphalt on our particu...

Inquiry

Our project is being built on what was once a City-owned asphalt parking lot. All the asphalt was removed, taken to a recycling plant, and crushed. We are not able to re-use the asphalt on our particular site for fill, however the asphalt will be used as fill on several other projects around town. The company that hauled the asphalt specializes in recycling and redistributing concrete, rock, and asphalt for use as fill in construction projects. Although the book states the asphalt needs to be crushed and re-used on site, we feel we are meeting the intent of the credit since we are diverting demolition debris from landfill and incinerators, and we are redirecting reusable materials to appropriate sites.

Ruling

The credit intent has been met as demolition debris has been diverted from disposal in landfills and incinerators. In this instance, reusable materials have been redirected to appropriate sites. The credit does not require that crushed asphalt be reused on site, so long as it is diverted from landfills and incinerators. On-site reuse of crushed concrete, masonry or asphalt is also acceptable in the calculation for this credit. Applicable Internationally.

Methodology #1 Each co-mingled load of construction debris is weighted at the MRF and visually inspected then the percentage of each recyclable material is tallied. The recyclable materials are then p...

Inquiry

Methodology #1 Each co-mingled load of construction debris is weighted at the MRF and visually inspected then the percentage of each recyclable material is tallied. The recyclable materials are then processed for sale on the secondary market. The tallied data is documented in a running monthly report created by either the MRF or the Hauler and is submitted to the contractor for the project. Methodology #2 The MRF's self-reported recycling percentage rate (for the entire facility) is applied toward specific LEED projects' delivered co-mingled tonnage brought to that facility. We are aware of the CIR ruling dated 12.2.05 stating that a project can use this methodology if a facility has government oversight over a facility's recycling rate calculations. In our case we have government oversight of the MRFs overall recovery rates but the reporting methodology required by the oversight agency doesn't account for C&D debris - asphalt, gypsum wallboard, and concrete tonnage which is processed through those facilities. LEED NC v2.2 accepts and credits concrete towards MRc2 but this disconnect between how the oversight agency tracks materials versus what is actually processed in a facility doesn't allow for accurate reporting and subsequent award of LEED credit in our local market. Please let us know if one or both methods are acceptable for tracking and documenting co-mingled boxes for MRc2.

Ruling

This CIR asks if the USGBC can advise if one or both of two listed methods for documenting the recycled content of commingled waste are acceptable. In Methodology #1, if the facility is giving project specific recycling rates, they need to document actual percentage of material recycled based on actual weight or volume of material. Visual inspection is not an acceptable method. For "Methodology #2," the facility must be able to document that the "method of recording and calculating the recycling rate is regulated by a local or state government authority" in accordance with CIR dated 12/2/2005. If the facility's reported recycling rate is regulated by a local or state government, then it can be used toward achievement of the credit. Applicable Internationally.